Correcting the Cosmological Argument: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Correcting the Cosmological Argument » Correcting the Cosmological Argument

Correcting the Cosmological Argument
The negation and correction of the cosmological argument for God.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Correcting the Cosmological Argument

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/02/09 - 10:44 AM: Subject: Correcting the Cosmological Argument	#1
The most common argument for the existence of God is the cosmological argument. Here is one possible variation. God is necessary for the existence of the world/universe. There is evidence the world exists. The evidence for the existence of the world is also evidence that God must exist. I don't intend to discuss the circular nature of this argument. Instead I want to negate the argument and provide an acceptable correction. Possibility is necessary for the existence of the world. There is evidence the world exists. The evidence for the existence of the world is also evidence that it is possible for the world to exist. If it is possible for the world to exist, then God is unnecessary for the existence of the world. If God is unnecessary for the existence of the world, then the world is not evidence for the existence of God. So, is it logically correct, contradictory, question begging, trivially true, not compelling, etc. ? The cosmological argument has stayed with us for a while, so I'm not here to blindly defend my first conjecture. All intelligent comments are welcome.
Or not.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 125

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:13 PM:	#2
Surely if something is possible it needs something to action it. For example it is possible that I tomorrow will much my housemate for the state he has left the kitchen in (so my fist, his face - not anyone elses fist), but for that possibility to occur I have to exist. I just done see possibility presupposing non-existence. Surely if the world is possible then either something has made the possibility a reality or some mathematical randomness has made it happen (a divine ratio if you may), both of which beg the question of what made those realitys more than possibilities. Now I don't like the cosmological argument - it seems logically very weak and almost not worthy of questioning. But if someone believes it they aren't going to be swayed by logic because they have so flagrantly abused logic in reaching the conclusion that it is correct. I also don't like the idea of trying to use logic to define whether or not a God exists when logic has so many flaws inherent in it at the moment. Just like I don't expect science to solve the problem of what right actually is and what wrong actually is. It also seems to me whenever we get an overtly logical philosophy we all basically rebel against it (be it Hume's scepticism or Hegel's system). The same applies to any overtly belief-based philosophy (though it usually becomes theology). It seems to me that you really have to have a belief in the infallibility of logic to believe such systems, an assurance that for me isn't there. In fact the idea that logic can solve the question of God and how to live our lives assigns an omnipotence and benevolence to logic thats beginning to sound a lot like God, maybe it created the world to. Using logic is very important to clarify our own understanding but I just don't think it can solve everything.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/02/09 - 01:01 PM:	#3
It is hard to respond w/out talking about the fact that the conclusion begs the question: 'what makes it possible?'. Chesh wrote: If it is possible for the world to exist, then God is unnecessary for the existence of the world. Does not necessarily follow. For instance, if we allow for contingency (i.e. no strict determinism) then possibility is ultimately reliant upon agency; something has to intentionally trigger the actuality of the thing that was a possibility. If we consider strict determinism, then there is need to answer the question that is begged above. OR...we have to change our notion of causality drastically. Edited by rigelrover on 11/02/09 - 01:08 PM. Reason: Noted: the first premise holds, it is the conclusion that is the problem
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/02/09 - 01:40 PM:	#4
rigelrover wrote: It is hard to respond w/out talking about the fact that the conclusion begs the question: 'what makes it possible?'. Good question. I'll do my best to avoid the speculation that will assure you of my insanity. During pre-existence we can reason their existed the possibility for existence. A possibility existing in the context of infinity must occur. So, it is "made possible" simply by being without restriction to occur -and given infinite chance to occur. Common causality seeks to show a context makes possible an event, so I am keeping with this principle. However, the context is atypical. Tenable? Can I get away with supposing a probabilistic preexistence? ridgelrover wrote: OR...we have to change our notion of causality drastically. Not really; causality itself will require infinite regress unless there is a context in which possibility is itself a cause. So, in a way it is predicted by determinism. Edited by Cheshire on 11/02/09 - 01:58 PM
Or not.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/02/09 - 02:01 PM:	#5
During 'pre-existence' I don't think we can reason about anything (unless something was there). If something was there than it begs the question agains: 'how did it get there?', 'why it and not something else?'. If we want to posit some universal rule like "a possibility must occur given an infinite amount of time", for instance we still be the question "why/how is it possible in the first place?". The possibility of something rather than nothing is not guaranteed by any quip of logic that I know about. I don't think that this has been clearly helped here. I should point out that though it is trivially true, your first premise "Possibility is necessary for the existence of the world" is exactly what logically causes us to beg the questions above. It is also exactly what is meant by the Cosmological Argument in the first place. In other words, there would be an infinite regress of "cosmological arguments" for each level of explanation provided by the actual existence of a possibility. This (among other things) is what led ex-atheist Tony Flew to change his mind recently and to believe in the existence of a creator/sustainer-like God.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/02/09 - 08:29 PM:	#6
rigelrover wrote: During 'pre-existence' I don't think we can reason about anything (unless something was there). The problem is if something is there than it is not 'pre-existence'. rigelrover wrote: If something was there than it begs the question agains: 'how did it get there?', 'why it and not something else?'. If we want to posit some universal rule like "a possibility must occur given an infinite amount of time", for instance we still be the question "why/how is it possible in the first place?". The possibility of something rather than nothing is not guaranteed by any quip of logic that I know about. I don't think that this has been clearly helped here. I can't say why or how the universe became possible. Do you know that it was impossible at any point? rigelrover wrote: I should point out that though it is trivially true, your first premise "Possibility is necessary for the existence of the world" is exactly what logically causes us to beg the questions above. It is also exactly what is meant by the Cosmological Argument in the first place. In other words, there would be an infinite regress of "cosmological arguments" for each level of explanation provided by the actual existence of a possibility. This (among other things) is what led ex-atheist Tony Flew to change his mind recently and to believe in the existence of a creator/sustainer-like God. I'll look into it. I've never heard of Flew or an ex-atheist for that matter, so it would be interesting. Basically, I think I have to argue that at some point causality in the context of infinity is different then causality in common experience. Question begging aside is the argument technically valid or can we dismiss it? Seems like Flew was working with the science of the day. Intelligent Design isn't even within scientific consideration and the Big-Bang is not nearly as simple a concept since Inflationary theory came about in the 1980s. It seems he was willing to believe that without god then these questions would never be answered. He was 80+ so maybe he quit looking for answers and simply accepted god on a default basis. From his dialog he hardly seems enthusiastic about theism. Edited by Cheshire on 11/02/09 - 09:03 PM
Or not.

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/02/09 - 09:07 PM:	#7
The latest developments in the understanding of quantum mechanics and dark matter suggest that the universe could have spontaneously formed from nothing, because it is now understood that "nothing" is actually something. The spaces between celestial bodies are actually serving a purpose in maintaining the gravitational forces of galaxies, and those spaces make up more of the mass of the universe than anything else. I'm an agnostic for the reason that I think it's either all evidence for god or it all isn't, empirically and all functioning human sensory systems being equal. The "spirituality" which many people sense I believe is a representation of the interconnectedness between humanity and the universe. Our thoughts and perceptions are as integral to existence as anything else in in the universe. It is said the atoms which make up our bodies originated in supernovas. I reckon the energy which powers life on this planet and all the movements and events and stars of the universe along with the very thoughts in our heads originate from the same energy source. Although the universe exists independently of people and all the evidence indicates it was here for eons before us and will be here long after us, by comprehending it we create and contextualize our own reality one person at a time. If no one were here to think about it, then how would the universe exist at all? From a human standpoint, it wouldn't (I love that concept).

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:19 AM:	#8
Cheshire wrote: The problem is if something is there than it is not 'pre-existence'. Exactly the problem that I was pointing at. Cheshire wrote: I can't say why or how the universe became possible. Do you know that it was impossible at any point? I don't know anything reasonable about 'pre-existence' (and neither do Stephen Hawking, Frank Wilczek, etc.) Cheshire wrote: Seems like Flew was working with the science of the day. Intelligent Design isn't even within scientific consideration and the Big-Bang is not nearly as simple a concept since Inflationary theory came about in the 1980s. It seems he was willing to believe that without god then these questions would never be answered. He was 80+ so maybe he quit looking for answers and simply accepted god on a default basis. From his dialog he hardly seems enthusiastic about theism. He never said that he was an enthusiastic about any of it. He said many times that he was following the evidence where it led. Be careful (if you do read any of his arguments) to avoid some of the ad hominum attacks that folks like Richard Dawkins have given as counter arguments (e.g. "He quotes Michael Behe, ha, ha, ha", or "He is quite advanced in age"). I would not say that I agree with all of Flew's reasoning, but there is something interesting in his work. [Note: there are other intelligent, capable people who are well advanced in age. Ray Smullyan is 100 years old this year, and has written 3-4 books in the last few years. One of these is my favorite source of insight on god-questions. It is called 'Who Knows'.] Edited by rigelrover on 11/03/09 - 06:39 AM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/03/09 - 08:36 AM:	#9
rigelrover wrote: I don't know anything reasonable about 'pre-existence' (and neither do Stephen Hawking, Frank Wilczek, etc.) So, there is no 'before existence'? No, time at which existence was a matter of probability? How then is it necessary for God to create/trigger/make possible something that has always been? Sashianova wrote: The latest developments in the understanding of quantum mechanics and dark matter suggest that the universe could have spontaneously formed from nothing, because it is now understood that "nothing" is actually something. The spaces between celestial bodies are actually serving a purpose in maintaining the gravitational forces of galaxies, and those spaces make up more of the mass of the universe than anything else. Is it possible to say that 'nothing' in common usage is an abstract idea that does not actually describe reality at any point? rigel wrote: He said many times that he was following the evidence where it led. I believe him. I just question the quality of the evidence available at the time he made his decision. Edited by Cheshire on 11/03/09 - 08:55 AM
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/03/09 - 08:43 AM:	#10
OP wrote: Possibility is necessary for the existence of the world. There is evidence the world exists. The evidence for the existence of the world is also evidence that it is possible for the world to exist. If it is possible for the world to exist, then God is unnecessary for the existence of the world. If God is unnecessary for the existence of the world, then the world is not evidence for the existence of God. If the universe was always in existence in some form, then it has always been possible for the universe to exist. So, a lack of a 'pre-existence' doesn't prevent the validity of the argument. To say something must be triggered or made possible we must be able to show it some how first was impossible. Otherwise, in this context it may be reasonable that the universe simply emerged from a different unknown state. In doing so there is no moment of creation, so there is no God necessary for the moment. Hence, always possible.
Or not.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.